Philosophically Thinking
Hypothetically, if we had three identical continents, with identical resources, we could run an experiment. One continent could pursue business as usual, one could make a radical commitment to the pursuit of nuclear power, and the third could pursue a radical commitment to using only renewable energy sources.
Only one of these three imaginary continents, pursuing their agenda, could make any kind of claim that they could possibly contain their experiment to their own borders. The emissions of the first would of course continue to pollute globally, and the inevitable reactor meltdowns would of course scatter radioactive isotopes, globally as well. So, let's adopt imaginary planets then. Three identical Earths at this point in history, with the current conditions. Each pursues one of the above strategies. The question then, is which planet would you choose to join? Planet Burn, Planet Nuke, or Planet Harvest? Twenty years in the future? Fifty years in the future? Two hundred years in the future?
I'd choose the third of course, and I assume, BRAWM, that you'd leap for P.N. It's a philosophical difference as much as anything.
But we don't have three planets. We have just this one. Consequently those of us who would prefer to accommodate nature, live within a budget, and harvest in perpetuity, must, not by choice, breathe the smoke and ingest the spewed isotopes of those who prefer to burn. Even if they are on a different continent.
And so must our children, and our children's children. For want of an electron that long ago did its useful work, and as the photons stream by, freely.
I'll give you an alternative
I'll give you an alternative viewpoint. Stephen Hawking has suggested that humanity living on one planet is a guarantee of destruction of the species. The reason is that eventually something bad will happen, nuclear war, meltdowns, asteroid impact or some other externality.
Extinction level events from outside occur quite frequently over geologic timescales. What must be done to perpetuate the species, therefore is colonization of other worlds. Our most likely target is Mars since the moon might be subject to a catastrophe in the same vein as Earth if a large NEO was to traverse our orbit.
With Mars in mind, there exists a problem of how to make it habitable for humans. Living inside enclosures would not be ideal. It would then be a matter of powering this new society in order to terraform the planet to conditions similar to Earth. While there is probably a great deal of methane on Mars, and CO2 releases might be one way to green up and warm the atmosphere, it would likely take nuclear fission or fusion to power the society. Wind power might be possible, but dust storms would likely make mechanical turbines break initially. Solar is not possible as the distance to the sun makes the output per meter drop significantly. Hydrogen is a possibility, but requires input energy to produce.
So, you might get to see a planet with full-bore nuclear usage, at least initially.
There really is no other way to stay on another planet currently, so far from the sun without mining infrastructure to extract natural resources.
What irony then would it be to possibly have humanity's fate rely on nuclear power.